User talk:Subsourian
Achievement Images I have them ready to go; couldn't find them in the editor either, but found them on Battle.net by ripping them from the website's profile display. :) DrakeyC (talk) 15:59, November 19, 2015 (UTC) Awesome, good to hear! Thanks! :D I'll start on more mission articles then. Subsourian (talk) 17:12, November 19, 2015 (UTC) :Sounds good. I'm gonna start on the achievement boxes at StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void achievements. I dunno if I'll finish them all today but I may be able to. DrakeyC (talk) 17:58, November 19, 2015 (UTC) :The mission achievements at least are all done and on that page, should save you some time moving ahead. I'll add the mastery ones later tonight. DrakeyC (talk) 20:24, November 19, 2015 (UTC) Just a note; Walkthrough isn't a subsection of the History section. History is for the story background, Walkthrough is gameplay, they're separate. DrakeyC (talk) 23:14, November 20, 2015 (UTC) Yeah my fault, I messed up initally. I think the later ones have it right but when I start up the next batch of missions tomorrow or Sunday I'll make sure the categories are all correct. 04:09, November 21, 2015 (UTC) Mission Pages Just a note as you keep working. I'm slowing down my work on the other stuff, but there's still things to do. If there's an important building or unit in a mission somewhere that needs a page, feel free to link it, even if it's a redlink. I'll go through the mission pages over time to remind myself of what's to be done, then do it. :) DrakeyC (talk) 19:27, November 23, 2015 (UTC) Will do! I think you've gotten most of the important ones, but I'll go back and see if there's any I forgot to link. Subsourian (talk) 19:41, November 23, 2015 (UTC) :Aye, the only ones I can think of now are all the "Void Gobbledegook" buildings Amon keeps siccing on you in the later missions. DrakeyC (talk) 20:46, November 23, 2015 (UTC) Short Story Edits Thanks for the short story edits. A few things though: *When categorizing character articles, they're done in a way that means that on the character pages, they're grouped by surname rather than forename (e.g. Jim Raynor would come under R rather than J). To do this, put at the bottom of a character page - any category they're placed in will automatically be sorted through this. *Concerning the HotS short stories (e.g. Momentum, and the Vikings one), I noticed that you've placed the events in 2504, given the death date. It's been ages since I've glanced at the short stories, but I'm wondering where the dates come from. The Viking one is undoubtedly during SGW, but SGW extends into 2505, and Kerrigan could still send zerg against Braxis during HotS. Likewise, Momentum - it has no context bar "protoss vs. terrans" so I'm not sure how the timeframe is established. Minor other points, but otherwise articles are fine.--Hawki (talk) 21:12, December 4, 2015 (UTC) Your deletion of my addition to "2506" from dec. 17th. is undersatndable. I'm fine with our action, Subsourian. (Just so you know.) --VikingCthulhu (talk) 12:47, December 19, 2015 (UTC) Lockwell's Twitter Nice find with Lockwell's twitter. However, I noticed you put the dates as 2508, and I'm wondering where the year comes from. We know that Nova Covert Ops takes place a few years after 2508, so while '08 is the last concrete year we have for the overall storyline, we can't really assume that the twitter's events take place in the year.--Hawki (talk) 06:33, March 23, 2016 (UTC) Tutorial Is the StarCraft II tutorial new? And if so, how do you get into it? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 22:24, June 21, 2016 (UTC) Re: Battles Yet another thing I haven't got round to. Admittedly this isn't a hard standard since we have stuff like "Battle of Korhal (Planetfall) when it's still all game-based. Of all the LotV battle articles, I think we should keep Reclamation of Aiur (as external material features) and maybe Battle of Korhal, since we can factor in Co-op mission material. The others I think can be deleted.--Hawki (talk) 13:55, July 2, 2016 (UTC) Re: Factions They actually do have categories - for instance, the Dominion/Confderacy categories have articles pertaining to them in general (e.g. the Confederacy has the Old Families page), and sub-categories such as armed forces and worlds. There was a discussion awhile ago concerning Confederate/Dominion characters, but that's another issue (mostly due to the size of the undertaking).--Hawki (talk) 23:13, July 6, 2016 (UTC) :Stuff like Axiom is part of the problem in my mind. The thing about the Confederacy and the Dominion is that they're huge (from a story standpoint), and cover so many people in a story sense. For instance, almost every protoss character can mostly be grouped under the existing character categories, because very few protoss exist outside their factions, and can generally be assumed to be loyal to them. Likewise, the zerg are, well, the zerg. However, take someone like Fagin - is he a "Confederate character?" True, he's a citizen, but he possesses no loyalty or 'role' in the Confederacy. And you pointed out Axiom - are they "Dominion characters," when they only work for it? The Umojan Protectorate and KMC articles have so far avoided this problem in that they've got a manageable number of characters to deal with, but the Confederacy and Dominion? Yeah. :That said, you've certainly got the time on your hands to undergo such an undertaking, so hey, go for it. However, I think the category pages should state the criteria on them (similar to some other category pages), and we decide what that criteria is. Something along the lines of: The character is a confirmed citizen of the faction (which would apply for most) And/or The character has demonstrable affiliation with the faction, whether it be in organization or role (e.g. that would exclude Fagin, because his affiliation is only down to citizenship, while his actions do nothing to serve the Confederacy). That does leave a lot of grey areas, but my instinct is that drawing the line of distinct affiliation would cover it, leaving far more minor and/or rebellious characters out of them.--Hawki (talk) 09:45, July 8, 2016 (UTC) User Rights You've made really great contributions to the wiki. Have you thought of becoming an admin? I'm one of the two bureaucrats here, and though I hardly have time to post anymore, I'm still noticing your work. If you agree, I can make you into an admin immediately. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 16:28, July 9, 2016 (UTC) :Done! PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 17:21, July 9, 2016 (UTC) StarCraft 64 Have you ever played it? I never owned a Nintendo 64, and now that I can afford one they're all old and "rusted". PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 23:00, July 13, 2016 (UTC) :I'd be really happy if someone videotaped Resurrection IV (and any accompanying cinematics, if any). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 04:17, July 15, 2016 (UTC) Re: Strategy and Esport Articles When I first became an admin on this wiki, it had been orphaned. Also Wikipedia was deleting the vast majority of StarCraft articles there. This was intended to cover everything to do with StarCraft. In practice, none of the frequent contributors are esports watchers, so you're right, those articles really wither on the vine. Articles that are embarrassingly out of date or obvious don't need to be here, and that might be all, or virtually all, of the strategy articles. Hawki is effectively the head admin now, so he needs to be in on the conversation too, however. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 23:12, July 16, 2016 (UTC) Concerning the specific points raised on my talk page: *I'd personally go for a "general" achievements page. Seems to be a better blanket term. *I'm getting the same issue, where the text reads "Template: Legacy of the Void," presented as a link, rather than the template itself. My preference would be to mimic Template: Heart of the Swarm (and the WoL one) by listing the missions rather than using the chart, but including a link to Legacy of the Void missions in the same way. It's something I can do myself when I have time, but it should be simple enough to copy-paste. *I'm aware that we kind of lag behind in gameplay stuff, but stuff like Zerg vs. Terran (StarCraft II) is still something I support. It's broad enough to encompass a variety of info (including builds), and allow users to edit it as they desire. Same reason I allow editors free reign (more or less) on stuff like commander articles. I'm wary of linking to Liquidpedia though, as it doesn't state a good message about us - if the info is important, we should be able to cover it ourselves. And so far, there has been an interest in gameplay info (user edits of the commander articles is testament to that), so while it's not ideal, I don't think we need to shift our manual of style too much.--Hawki (talk) 07:23, July 20, 2016 (UTC) Thank you Just wanted to drop a big Thank You! for continually updating the Mutators page. - Shoone (talk) 14:19, July 18, 2016 (UTC) Re: Achievment Images I extracted them from the Battle.net website. Here, I'll link you. :) The spritesheets are numbered 1 to 14, just change the 1 in that link appropriately. DrakeyC (talk) 09:07, July 22, 2016 (UTC) Re: Tal'darim :No problem. I remember asking a mod "why do the templates for achievements have their coding on pages instead of actually being templates?" and he basically gave me the go-ahead to fix that. :Those specific unit skins are in the HotS Campaign dependency, so make sure that's loaded first. Find the normal unit you want to grab the shot for in the Units tab, scroll to the Model stuff, and find that unit's base model. In the table to the right there should be a field for which model is used, double-click that, and click Browse in the window that pops up. Find the "Dark" version of the unit's model file (they're all prefixed that way, DarkStalker, DarkSentry, etc), select that, and boom, the unit will use the dark Tal'darim skin when placed in the editor. Set them to Player 7 to get the green color. DrakeyC (talk) 03:01, August 9, 2016 (UTC) Bio-Steel Why do the two Mind Blast templates now link to Bio-Steel? DrakeyC (talk) 15:33, August 10, 2016 (UTC) Re: HotS Per the queries (god damn it, this is why I hate timezones, GamesCom aired at 2am for me): *You're probably aware of HotS policy on the wiki, that it's okay to include stuff from it on the basis that it's labeled as such, and we draw a line against the 'silly' stuff - very nebulous, but it prevents us from overturning Tychus's deceased status. Also helps that in HotS lore (such as it is), hero skins tend to originate from different realities. *The two new maps are fine to include, as they have associated lore with them that easily fits in the SC setting. This shouldn't include them being sucked into the Nexus or whatnot, but I'd be fine with those maps. *Stuff like infested (insert unit here), I'm a bit more wary about. I think they should certainly be noted in their articles, but I'm iffy about making articles for them. We'd have no stats, and it doesn't tell us anything that NCO hasn't (that infested terrans can pilot vehicles). *On stuff like devouring maw, I was actually under the impression that it was meant to be a nydus worm, with "devouring maw" being a descriptive (I'd have to check the ability description again). Under that assumption, it should be okay to include the unit though, as it can't really be lumped in with a pre-existing article. Heck, even "butcherlisk" might get a page (but wait until we have skin flavor text for that). *Keep categorizing in Heroes of the Storm. We don't have much to lose from the category. It also helps us quickly access HotS articles if we have to (e.g. if Blizzard declared that absolutely nothing should be taken from the game in a canon sense). *I've been meaning to create a protoss weapons sub-category for awhile. I'm fine with you going ahead with it, even giving it a template as well. That said, I have been a bit wary of some of the articles - usually weapons get individual articles when the weapon itself can exist in isolation from the unit (e.g. the gauss rifle), or has a plenthora of info on the weapon itself (e.g. the Yamato cannon). The liberator's gun for instance, has little info on it, and has only ever been used by the liberator. A lot of the stuff is just a sentence or two. There's no hard or fast rule about this, and it's a bit late now, but if you have the time, check the unit articles and make sure the weapon info is linked to within them.--Hawki (talk) 22:31, August 16, 2016 (UTC) More points: *God, I'd forgotten about Zagara's NW ability. Shows you how much I actually use it. 0_0 *Treat the maps as locations with the HotS template. Warhead Junction is a storage depot, Braxis Holdout a space platform. *Tracer and Illidan would indeed fall into the "silly" end of the spectrum. This is admittedly me utilizing admin privilige, in that when I wrote the HotS canon policy, I used the silly/serious divide as a sort of cop-out to allow some info to be incorporated, some not. But yeah - it's the reason why we don't have an article for a spectre called Tracer, but have one for the phantom jetbike.--Hawki (talk) 23:17, August 16, 2016 (UTC) Re: Insurrection Template If you're talking about the template on the bottom, the Overmind and Tassadar can be left out. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 11:16, August 29, 2016 (UTC) Map created by... When someone has created a map, please link a reference to the article confirming the creator. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 00:11, September 4, 2016 (UTC) :I think we can only comment on mapmakers if we know enough to make a worthwhile article. I think they're usually progamers, and we have very few articles on them. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:46, September 4, 2016 (UTC) Re: Co-op You referring to the Co-op units template, that lists the commanders, units, etc? I figure it may as well be used. I mean, there's nothing urgent about it, but we don't really lose anything by including it, and some people may only play co-op missions and nothing else, so stuff like pvp or campaign may be academic to them. Also not sure what you mean against blocking, as I haven't encountered a case where you can't link from one wiki to another bad admin dictates (e.g. the HotS wiki admin insists on linking to WoWwiki rather than Wowpedia). But no, I can't think of any reason to block links.--Hawki (talk) 03:18, September 15, 2016 (UTC) :Ah, right. On that note, I'd say no. If the user is disruptive on this wiki, we can deal with them, but I don't think their supposed guilt on one wiki should be transferred here. Especially since, in this particular case, the Mass Effect wiki is downright draconian.--Hawki (talk) 12:38, September 16, 2016 (UTC) ::On occasion, trolls spam talk pages on different wikis to harass a user. I don't think this is happening here, but it's something to watch out for. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 00:45, September 17, 2016 (UTC) Warhead Junction I've tried to play this map in Heroes of the Storm but simply can't get to it. I've been able to play Braxis Holdout by selecting a "custom" game and picking it from the list. (I usually pick AI players as I'm less playing the game and more learning about the map.) Is there a way to pick Warhead Junction? Main Page Main page looks good. Nice work. And if it's any consolation, I'm also pissed about the lack of future mission packs, but I guess that's how the cookie crumbles. :(--Hawki (talk) 21:28, October 4, 2016 (UTC) Re: E-sports At some point, we'll have to involve Psi in a discussion as to e-sports notability, and what would make the cut. In the short term, I figure that any player that has a portrait based on them can have an article - we've had 'portrait articles' based on far less.--Hawki (talk) 09:21, October 29, 2016 (UTC) :I think a short article is fine, much like the Craft-related Overwatch articles, and we could link more comprehensive sources on the people in question. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 11:21, October 29, 2016 (UTC) BlizzCon 2016 Edits Concerning some of your edits, I think the source is off. For instance, I know Deborah Green has been mentioned in promotional material somewhere, but not in the article you've linked to. Likewise can't find a mention of Shadow Wars in the post.--Hawki (talk) 05:49, November 5, 2016 (UTC) Infested terran vehicles don't count as breeds But is that true? Infested terran buildings are listed as "breeds". PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 20:47, November 9, 2016 (UTC) Terran building times Did all those terran building times change in a patch? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 15:23, December 31, 2016 (UTC) Re: Merchandise I'm iffy about merchandise getting articles given that a lot of it is representations of things that already exist (characters, units, etc.). I don't know if unit articles need a sub-section. It should be noted, yes, but for instance, the firebat article notes the action figure, whereas Raynor has multiple pieces of merchandise, hence the sub-section in his case. That said, I could see a simple "merchandise" article existing which combines them. Not usually our style admittedly, but I feel that would be better than "Jim Raynor 5' figure" articles. Concerning Heroes of the Storm stuff, I figure it's okay to note. We've already noted the funko pop stuff where it comes up, so if there's a StarCraft element in HotS merchandise, even if it's shared, it should be alright to note.--Hawki (talk) 21:48, February 22, 2017 (UTC) Good catch on Raynor. It probably ended up there as an extension of his "other appearances" (for other games). I've moved it. So, yeah - merchandise should go under notes/trivia sections.--Hawki (talk) 07:49, February 25, 2017 (UTC) HotS Evolution Missions Although we all know you don't actually have to do the evolution missions in HotS, the fact remains that those special zerg breeds were present in LotV. Even in the prologue that was out before the game itself, we saw hunter banelings, noxious ultralisks, vile roaches, impaler hydralisks, and raptor zerglings as part of the swarm that attacked the Moebius facility. The same was true in the Harbinger of Oblivion mission (though here the hydras were changed to the lurker type). It'll start varying once we reach the epilogue and everything as well. So should we change those pages to say the evolution missions were happened after all? (As in you actually did all of them and didn't just skip over it in HotS)--Psi-ragnarok (talk) 19:29, February 25, 2017 (UTC) :I think that's an unneeded assumption. A year passes between HotS and LotV, Kerrigan could have got the breeds since then. But that aside, the structure of the articles doesn't need changing. Anything that happens in an optional branch of canon is generally assumed to have occurred regardless.--Hawki (talk) 08:44, February 26, 2017 (UTC) ::Yeah Hawki pretty much hit the nail on the head, just because Kerrigan has those branches doesn't mean she didn't get them in other ways. Still, I think that noting that those individual broods were canonically incorporated at some point post-HotS in the individual unit articles would be fine. Subsourian (talk) 22:57, February 26, 2017 (UTC) Black Ops Buildings Images En taro Adun, mate! I've just uploaded screens of structures from Nova Covert Ops and Nova Co-op Commader. Do you recommand put them into articles or make special gallery under the text? Martian2351 (talk) 17:07, March 22, 2017 (UTC) Re: Images Right now, my preferred policy is to slot images into articles rather than doubling up on unit boxes. The SC1 articles get away with this because they're gameplay only, so we don't need to worry about in-universe presentation. With SC2, I'm fine with it if a lack of space demands it (e.g. the Night of the Dead zerg units), but otherwise, preferably, it should go in the article. But not too fussed either way, since the placement of images is more that of presentation rather than hard-set policy.--Hawki (talk) 21:43, March 22, 2017 (UTC) ::OK! I'll put it to articles tommorow morning. Thanks for advice! Martian2351 (talk) 22:11, March 22, 2017 (UTC) ::That was actually for Sub, not the above query. But on the subject of the above query, if you're going for simple recolors being uploaded, the image gallery would generally be preferred, unless there's room in the "overview" section, though that's best left for artwork and whatnot.--Hawki (talk) 03:17, March 23, 2017 (UTC) :::I think he just responded in the wrong section (I responded on his wall). I figured with a lot of the structures we wouldn't use a gallery until we had multiple things to put in there, since structure articles are pretty bare-bones anyway and having a gallery with one image looks odd. But considering how much the unit boxes mess up image placement on short articles, we may have to make a gallery anyway. Subsourian (talk) 03:47, March 23, 2017 (UTC) HotS portraits There is one difficulty about Heart of the Swarm - lot of portraits exists only in 3D version such as mutalisk or roach strains. I tried switch between 2D and 3D and there is huge different. For example - you can find primal mutalisk very easily - but rest of INGAME portraits no. You can find corpser strain in texture but not vile and still it's not cut content. Try HotS on extreme graphic performance and you'll see. Martian2351 (talk) 01:42, March 25, 2017 (UTC) Re: HotS Well, looked at their blog posts, and I'm suddenly reminded of Paladins, and its complex loot system. What happened to keeping things simple? :( Anyway, a lot of it will depend on how these features are implemented, but answering your points as best I can: 1) If there's a decal for, say, Alpha Squadron, then I don't have an issue with it being tagged/noted/listed. The template itself, however, should only be used for an actual Heroes of the Storm sub-section. If we simple lob it in notes/trivia, it doesn't need it, at least if there are other notes. If it's by its lonesome, maybe, but I don't see it as being necessary in that case. 2) I'd need to some of the images myself. "Char Zerg" I'm not sure about creating an article for (zerg spend a lot of time on Char, we have a Char Brood anyway), Sgt. Hammer's battallion...maybe? Don't think a sergeant commands battalions, or maybe it's a battalion she's part of, but, well, I'm not sure. No problem with it being noted, but iffy about article creation. 3) Fine with announcers being listed/noted. A lot of the HotS stuff is, I think, basically only noteworthy for this wiki. As in, we can note that Nova is a hero in HotS, and add in announcer, but don't need to go too in-depth.--Hawki (talk) 22:03, March 29, 2017 (UTC) Back on this topic, I've started looking at stuff like the banners. In the instance of stuff like "Kaldir Zerg," I'm even less inclined to give them an article. It seems more like a general descriptive for the change in colour. I've been incorporating flavor text, but I think the color change in of itself isn't indicative of anything.--Hawki (talk) 07:57, April 1, 2017 (UTC) Re: Images Curses, and I was just beginning to enjoy the new firebat look. ;p Anyway, fair enough - I actually agree that the SC1 pictures should take precedence. I also agree that we can make a final decision after the game's release, but for now, the old images will take precedence. I'll adjust the existing articles, and add new images to galleries as required.--Hawki (talk) 12:00, March 31, 2017 (UTC) Tal'darim Symbol Subsourian, I read your discussion part about the Tal'darim symbol and whether to give the Tal'darim under Nyon's control the flag of the original Tal'darim as shown in LotV. I know you're waiting for people's opinions on this, but I have a suggestion: in the event other people agree with you, should we give the first Tal'darim flag symbol to the Aiur Tal'darim from the DT Saga instead? After all, Blizzard confirmed they didn't serve Amon, and as of this moment, the Aiur Tal'darim don't have a symbol of their own.--Psi-ragnarok (talk) 00:43, April 7, 2017 (UTC) One of the reasons why I felt there was a need to give the Nyon Tal'darim their own symbol is because we don't know the reason why Duran enlisted Raynor's help in WoL. After HotS, many people felt his actions made no sense. If he commanded the Tal'darim all along, why couldn't Duran just order them to give him the Keystone? That's why originally we thought the Tal'darim faction in WoL was different from that in HotS. However from Alarak's quotations, Nyon belonged to the same faction, but went insane from too much terrazine exposure. That could mean that the terrazine insanity messed with Nyon's loyalty to Duran, and therefore would no longer give him the Keystone. If he would no longer give Duran the Keystone, then it could mean that the insanity made Nyon no longer loyal to Amon (remember, until Alarak defeated Ma'lash, the Tal'darim main body continued to serve him). If that's indeed the case, then it would mean Nyon's Tal'darim had broken away from the main Tal'darim body (even if they didn't realize it, terrazine insanity and all), and therefore deserves their own symbol.--Psi-ragnarok (talk) 17:53, April 7, 2017 (UTC) :I'm not here to say Nyon was a renegade, Subsourian. What I'm saying is that no one can deny the terrazine made him crazy. Terrazine is a drug, and the very character of a drug is that once you take too much of it for too long, it'll have side-effects on you. So if you want to say Nyon's Tal'darim aren't a rebellious faction, that's fine. But the fact still remains that the terrazine affected them to insanity. A possible theory could be that the insanity made them unable to tell friend from foe, and simply saw everyone around them as foes, even Duran. If that's the case, it'd explain why he had to enlist Raynor to get the Keystone fragments, instead of just commanding Nyon to hand it over. In that regard it's not about being a rebellious faction or a renegade in the normal sense, but rather that the terrazine exposure turned Nyon's Tal'darim into a rebellion faction and they didn't even realize it.--Psi-ragnarok (talk) 18:41, April 7, 2017 (UTC) ::There is one other theory I have for the differences in Tal'darim actions in WoL and HotS (though this is going slightly off topic here). It's possible Nyon and his Tal'darim forces never suffered from enough insanity to disobey Duran in the first place. After all, we never got to see the story from his POV. In other words, Duran ordered them to defend the Keystone fragments so that he himself could test the terrans. In the case of Raynor, this would be important because back in BW (think the True Colors briefing), Kerrigan specifically admitted that while Mengsk would be easy to deal with once Duke was gone, Raynor and Fenix were far more resourceful. And given the time he spent at Kerrigan's side, Duran would have known that unlike the Dominion generals, Raynor was no pompous commander so full of himself. ::At the same time though, Raynor didn't have as much experience in fighting Protoss, and the Tal'darim faction would be far from fanatical than the Protoss he's used to. It's possible that Duran enlisted Raynor's help merely to see what limitations Raynor had. This would be consistent with what Raynor was telling Artanis in LotV, that he lost a lot of good men hunting down those fragments just because of the armageddon prophecy Zeratul told him. Thus the whole of the artifact hunt, as Duran saw it, was to test his pawns. Raynor's desire to free Kerrigan, Mengsk's desire to see Kerrigan dead, and Tychus's desire to spend his life a free man all provided the necessary motivations. Thus as Duran saw it, even if Raynor won in getting the fragments, he would nevertheless have to bleed quite a lot to get it, which would make him easier to deal with in the future. And it's for this reason that Duran told Nyon's Tal'darim to defend the fragments at all costs. You let me know what you think of this (and maybe ask it at Blizzcon too if you get the chance).--Psi-ragnarok (talk) 01:55, April 10, 2017 (UTC) :::Alarak didn't exactly throw Ji'Nara's forces out in NCO. She made it clear in the Dark Skies mission that Alarak had been testing her. However to say that Nyon's forces were the weaker of the Tal'darim, that theory makes more sense, mainly because the Raiders were initially weak. They only had the Hyperion and a hand full of volunteers. Even by the time you reach Bel'shir, the Raiders would still have been numerically weak in number, had slender resources, and armed with patched-weaponry. Thus for them to succeed against Nyon's forces on Bel'shir would prove either his troops were weak, or that Nyon was incompetent, or both. It would still factor into my theory of Duran trying to test Nyon though, as he would have wanted to see just what limitations Raynor really had. :::By comparison for the Tal'darim in HotS, I always felt that was more due to Duran's arrogance (something we saw since Dark Origin) in thinking the Tal'darim he had would be enough. It had grounds though, given that Kerrigan never seemed to understand the swarm had limitations (that's why she lost at the end of WoL), and in any case the swarm hadn't been fully rebuilt by the time of Skygeirr. :::However if Duran was trying to test Raynor, you'd think he wouldn't use the "weak" Tal'darim elements to guard the Keystone fragments and everything. That being said however, Raynor didn't really see them as anything except the means to fund his rebellion against Mengsk until Valerian told him later on. It's possible that Raynor's heart wasn't really in it for the whole Keystone collecting until after the Supernova mission, and only then did we see a major strength increase to Nyon's Tal'darim forces. But by then Raynor was focused on his goal, which made him a tougher opponent. It's possible that Duran was trying to use Raynor as an example to show the rest of the Tal'darim that while most terran opponents are arrogant and can be easily dispatched, Raynor isn't one of them, and the Tal'darim aren't to take any chances when dealing with his Raiders. If you think you can't ask such Qs at Blizzcon, I sincerely hope you can find someone who can do it for you (I too want some answers to all this)--Psi-ragnarok (talk) 03:15, April 10, 2017 (UTC) Home link "Chain of Ascension" link on the co-op maps links to the societal order of the Tal'darim, not the co-op mission. -CombatMagic (talk) 18:30, April 27, 2017 (UTC) Purifier Scout Now that Fenix is confirmed to be a co-op commander, and has the ability to make scouts, does this mean we have to change the Purifier Scout page? (Since it can no longer count as a canceled SC2 unit) Psi-ragnarok (talk) 03:01, April 30, 2017 (UTC) Starcraft I quotes request Hey, remember me ? I'm working on Starcraft I quotes. I'm currently converting all files from WAV to OGG (it takes some time). You talked about the visual aspect of the Template (Template:Sm2), I can make it look better by adding a line to this import JS page, I just need you to add dev:OggPlayer.js, this will create a link to this page and the template will look better. Thanks for your time. - Tylobic (talk) 13:03, May 8, 2017 (UTC) Re: Re: Plasteel Thanks, Subs, I think I'm going to erase that speculation on my end. Also don't know how it ended up not that good when Anderson co-authored Prelude to Dune trilogy that is absolutely amazing! Oh, well!--CombatMagic (talk) 03:55, May 10, 2017 (UTC) Re: Names Names are generally on a by case basis. The Viking is called that because the "A2 Hybrid whatever" is more an official designation, while Viking is the common name. It's partly a holdover from a discussion I had years ago, the idea that the Viking seen in the Frontline comic wasn't necessarily the same type as the one in SC2. But the key issue is that in the Viking's case, its designation and general name are more segregated. However, with the Banshee, "AG/24 Banshee" (or whatever) flows more naturally, so it's fine to use its designation there. A similar issue exists with the dropship versus medivac dropship, how the former gets its full name, mainly to distinguish it from other dropship types, even though "dropship" also functions as a redirect. However, "medivac dropship" is used rather than "G-226 medical evacuation transport" as again, the latter is more an official designation rather than a flow-on from the more common name. On the subject of the SCV, I'm mixed. If we were to incorporate the Evolution variants into the article, it would be renamed as "space construction vehicle," and the lore info put in sub-headings similar to the battlecruiser article. On the other hand, every time the SCV has appeared in-game, it's always been the T-280, whereas battlecruiser classes have differed between games, even while there's only one battlecruiser unit so to speak. Really, I'm fine either way with the SCV article.--Hawki (talk) 23:43, May 17, 2017 (UTC) StarCraft 1 Quotes project report Hello, I left a message on my talk page for you about the StarCraft 1 quotes project. The message is pretty long that's why I didn't put it here, I don't want to invade and flood your talk page. Thanks for your time - Tylobic (talk) 22:22, May 22, 2017 (UTC) Picture Location Subsourian, how exactly did you edit the page to actually make the pictures go where they're supposed to go? Because I tried uploading a picture on the Glacius page and it always gets pushed down to under the unit box regarding the planet. Psi-ragnarok (talk) 23:12, May 25, 2017 (UTC) Blocking 116.123.239.88 Did we really need to block 116.123.239.88? He wasn't correct, but he wasn't so far off either. Maybe a warning to look at the sources instead? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 13:47, June 2, 2017 (UTC) Portable Infoboxes Heya! I'm not sure if you've heard of Portable Infoboxes before, but I wanted to let you know I've been working on converting StarCraft Wiki's infoboxes to this markup. The tl;dr is that it's more future proof than current infoboxes, and better on non-desktop skins, namely the mobile skin. You can read more here and here if you're curious or not sure about the idea. Basically I'll be able to convert all of your infoboxes to the new markup, which won't affect the pages or the content on the infoboxes, but will affect the code. I've recreated the Map infobox here - any thoughts on this? I can make any tweaks as needed, but if it's all cool with you and the rest of the community here, I'll be able to convert all the rest of your infoboxes to this style (as far as I can tell, you just need infoboxes to look like this, and then be able to change color to green/yellow/blue to match Zerg/Protoss/Terran?). And if you have any questions or need help with anything else, I'll be free to help you out. Thanks!-- Technobliterator T' ' 00:26, June 5, 2017 (UTC) :Thanks for the response! I've gotten the text to vertically align properly for you now, please lemme know if you spot anything else you think needs fixing. I'll message the others as well, and try and get UnitBox to work so that I can show off the different color switches - when that works, it should work the same as the ColorRace thing works.-- Technobliterator T' ' 07:22, June 5, 2017 (UTC) :To follow up: I've made a prototype of the Unit infobox now (since I thought that would be one of the most important boxes). Done both Thor and Void rays. Look good?-- Technobliterator T' ' 18:30, June 5, 2017 (UTC) ::Thanks for checking that - I think I've addressed all your issues right now. As for images, however, with Portable Infoboxes they automatically resize for the user based on their browser to get the right size, so it means you don't need to set your own size. Is your problem with the gifs for the portraits being too small?-- Technobliterator T' ' 19:51, June 5, 2017 (UTC) :I know Wikia encourages us to use portable infoboxes, as we have as many mobile as "regular" viewers. However I don't have a smartphone or tablet, so I can't check "check my work". If you're willing to work on the templates, great. I think "template: infobox" (a template that covers almost everything) needs to be updated to be portable. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 00:02, June 6, 2017 (UTC) ::Yeah, about that, I've noticed that your infoboxes named "Template:Infobox whatever" are styled differently to the others. So Umoja using "Infobox planetoid physical" is very different from Chau Sara using "WorldBox" - though WorldBox is used on way more pages. Is this deliberate? While I can do both styles, it's easier to make all the infoboxes follow the same style (and WorldBox and infoboxes using that design are on far more pages, so it would be easier to stick with that one).-- Technobliterator T' ' 04:27, June 6, 2017 (UTC) :::Ah, okay, in that case it would be preferable to shift all the infoboxes like on the Umoja page to those on the Chau Sara page. As for the infobox colors - what browser are you using? They should all have different colors like the original infoboxes (you might need to ctrl + F5 hard refresh on my sandbox to check). If there are no problems other than that, I could just wait for Hawki to comment and then convert them all?-- Technobliterator T' ' 17:48, June 6, 2017 (UTC) ::::Right makes sense, it doesn't work properly on IE (but IE is not supported anymore and it works fine on other browsers). Last thing to check: on my sandbox, I added a Battle template. Instead of having the box expand when there are more than two cells, which can lead to overly large infoboxes at times and bloated code, I got it to work so it automatically adds a third/fourth and fifth/sixth in a row below when needed. Is this cool with you?-- Technobliterator T' ' 18:21, June 6, 2017 (UTC) :::::Thanks for checking that! I've aligned it to the left now, it should be ok. If that's everything, I'll just wait for Hawki to get back and then start approving the drafts! Other than the fact that I might not be able to retain the infobox concat thing, I think this now means that the new Portable Infoboxes are basically identical or close enough to the originals. Let me know if you have any issues or questions at this point in time.-- Technobliterator T' ' 22:50, June 6, 2017 (UTC) Hey! It looks like everyone is mostly cool with the infoboxes now, so I'm just wondering if I have the go-ahead to convert them all? Or you could convert yourself if you prefer. Again, everything should be retained right now with the exception of infobox concat - beyond that, all the functionality is retained from the originals.-- Technobliterator T' ' 00:08, June 12, 2017 (UTC) :Only just now getting back (jetlag, emails, work, etc.). Anyway, it's a bit late to chime in, but looking at the infoboxes, they're...fine, I guess? I gather portable infoboxes are designed to make things easier for mobile users (which doesn't affect me, as I only view/edit on PC), but as long as the appearance remains the same, I'm fine. That, and coding. A lot of the infoboxes we use were created by Meco who's since left, so editing the code within them is often challenging. As long as the functionality isn't hindered as well, I'm fine with whatever upgrade's being proposed.--Hawki (talk) 03:56, June 12, 2017 (UTC) ::Thanks for taking a look, all! And indeed, the appearance and functionality remain intact (only exception is joining infoboxes and BattleBox' layout changed), and the code should actually be much easier with PIs. ::I have now converted them all, and I've gone around and checked pages and everything looks mostly fine so far. With that said, please let me know if there are any issues and I will try and fix them (in worst case scenario, you can revert my conversions until the page is fixed if it is badly broken). And if you need help with infoboxes or anything else, do not hesitate to inform me!-- Technobliterator T' ' 10:25, June 12, 2017 (UTC) Requesting a redo of the infobox issue.--Hawki (talk) 00:31, June 15, 2017 (UTC) NPC Comment I'm not here to blame you for the lashing out part. Trust me I've encountered those online WAY worse. For example, I've been on some anime sites where the guys in power IP ban regular members just because they have a different lore opinion (you know, basically where the lore is kind of left open to interpretation). As soon as Hawki gets back, you let me know what his thoughts are. Because I saw your point in it as well. If we follow that logic, then even the units you can build in multiplayer would count as NPC because they were used in the campaign.Psi-ragnarok (talk) 20:39, June 7, 2017 (UTC) :Subsourian, another note I recommend look into: look at the Brutalisk page on the wiki. Recall that the Brutalisk was an NPC unit in WoL, but was controllable in HotS and therefore was also given the category of 'zerg campaign unit.' Keep in mind that all this had taken place before Blizzard even gave us any info for LotV, which means this is also before Abathur was introduced as a Co-op commander (who also had brutalisks to control). Therefore, the Brutalisk was controllable in one campaign but was considered non-controllable in another, yet it got both the NPC and campaign unit categories on its page. Under that logic, how is that any different from the Wrathwalker? (Since it was a controllable unit in LotV but non-controllable in NCO) I hope you can understand what I'm getting at here...Psi-ragnarok (talk) 16:40, June 8, 2017 (UTC) ::I know what you mean. You also have to consider that after LotV, there are times where the NPC unit and the campaign unit categories could get blurred too easily, and it was no longer possible to say "It's either one or the other, it can't be both." ::Examples of this could be looking at the SC2 Guardian and Scout pages. As you know, both units cannot be built by the player, and therefore we would say it has to belong in the NPC category (remember Abathur and Fenix didn't become co-op commanders until WELL after LotV was out). But LotV also gave you access to the Dark Archon, which had mind control. Following that logic, a player could also argue "Well they're considered campaign units as well because I used Dark Archons and mind controlled them, which meant both units were mine to control." And if we're to factor the mind control ability onto NPC units, I'm sure you can see this would make things a lot more complicated. Psi-ragnarok (talk) 21:56, June 8, 2017 (UTC) :::Under the talk page stuff, per the definition, a unit can be both an NPC and campaign one. As in, if it appears as an NPC in WoL, but becomes playable in HotS for instance, then it gets both categories. But I would disagree about dark archon control breaking the divide.--Hawki (talk) 00:40, June 14, 2017 (UTC) Supplicant's Canon Status Subsourian, the whole reason why I felt the coop canon part of the supplicant should be moved is because of what was said in the war council. If you had clicked on the Ascendant and read its description, part of it specifically said "Years of absorbing terrazine and the essence of their supplicants have made these ascendants powerful indeed." From that quote, it means the supplicant already exists in the campaign canon, we just don't know what its capabilities are. Psi-ragnarok (talk) 01:03, June 13, 2017 (UTC) Box Update Ok I managed to work as much as I could for today on the colors. It appears the colors yellow, red, black, white, green, purple and orange are working just fine. The ones for blue, skyblue, royal blue (if that color exists), pink and teal don't seem to work out (there might be others, I don't know yet). Also, for the sake of curiosity, you happen to know who this Flufferbot is? Spent quite a few hours changing some of what HEX codes back into colors. Psi-ragnarok (talk) 04:28, June 17, 2017 (UTC) :I've added those, but there was already a template:blue. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 20:18, June 17, 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the tips with categories. I am still learning to edit big wikias like this. :) Remastered images They're all uploaded from DCinside galleries. I've already added them when uploading. See Zeratul for example. You can see the file, and the source is added on it inside. -Tlaqh1335 (talk) 16:37, July 27, 2017 (UTC) :Infested Terran Carrier Fenix Raszagal Vulture Duke, Edmund Duran, Samir Medic Stukov, Alexei :-Tlaqh1335 (talk) 17:20, July 27, 2017 (UTC) Correcting file names Thank you. -Tlaqh1335 (talk) 17:58, July 28, 2017 (UTC) More correcton Would you change File:Civilian SC1 HeadAnim.gif to :File:Civilian SCR HeadAnim.gif|File:Civilian SCR HeadAnim.gif, please?-Tlaqh1335 (talk) 18:32, July 28, 2017 (UTC) Re: More Corrections *File:Valkyrie SCR HeadAnim1.gif → File:Valkyrie SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:Vulture SCR HeadAnim1.gif → File:Vulture SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:Medic SCR Head1.gif → File:Medic SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:Archon SCR Head1.gif → File:Archon SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:EdmundDuke SCR HeadAnim1.gif → File:EdmundDuke SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:Aldaris SCR HeadAnim1.gif → File:Aldaris SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:Carrier SCR Head1.gif → File:Carrier SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:InfestedTerran SCR Head1.gif → File:InfestedTerran SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:AlexeiStukov SCR HeadAnim1.gif → File:AlexeiStukov SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:SamirDuran SCR HeadAnim1.gif → File:SamirDuran SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:HunterKiller SCR HeadAnim1.gif → File:HunterKiller SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:Overmind SCR HeadAnim1.gif → File:Overmind SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:Daggoth SCR HeadAnim1.gif → File:Daggoth SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:Zasz SCR HeadAnim1.gif → File:Zasz SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:InfestedKerrigan SCR HeadAnim1.gif → File:InfestedKerrigan SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:SarahKerrigan SCR HeadAnim1.gif → File:SarahKerrigan SCR HeadAnim.gif -Tlaqh1335 (talk) 19:10, July 28, 2017 (UTC) :All right. Take care. :-Tlaqh1335 (talk) 19:41, July 28, 2017 (UTC) Deletion request *File:Carrier SCR Head2.gif *File:Aoegame-20170727-233637-000.gif -Tlaqh1335 (talk) 21:08, July 28, 2017 (UTC) Correction request *File:ZergCocoon SCR Head1.jpg → File:Cocoon SCR Head1.jpg *File:ZergCocoon SCR HeadAnim.gif → File:Cocoon SCR HeadAnim.gif -Tlaqh1335 (talk) 08:18, July 30, 2017 (UTC) Rock the Cabinet Canon Subsourian, now that the Part and Parcel map has been made Co-op canon lore on the wiki, does this mean you intend to make every RTC submission Co-op Canon here on the wiki? Psi-ragnarok (talk) 23:22, July 30, 2017 (UTC) :It wasn't exactly my plan to make some of the RTC maps into the wiki. Some of them don't exactly make much sense with the canon. Scavenger Hunt was one, as I was never convinced of Amon's forces coming to pay Mira Han for her services. There's not exactly profit to be made for the destruction of the universe. Big City Showdown is another, as Kazorgo was the one who created the Marauders custom campaign, which was never meant to be taken seriously. :Others more had Blizzard themselves to blame. If Blizzard had actually bothered trying to hide the evidence of siphoning "Return of the Jedi" concept via the forest moon of Endion, we never would have had the Purification Redux mission where the bonus objective is to go kill the Ewoks, along with their leader Darth Teddy (the SW fans out there would be rolling in their graves). :IMO, perhaps the one that's closest to the actual SC canon would be the Losing Memories map, where the Nerazim moon of Ehlna came under assault by Amon's forces, and you have to get to the Wall of Knowledge and help the Alysaar move all the Ihan crystals out of the Alys'aril Archives. Psi-ragnarok (talk) 00:19, July 31, 2017 (UTC) Third file correction If you return in 7th of August, please accede these: *File:Shuttle Profile.gif → File:Shuttle SC1 HeadAnim1.gif *File:Shuttle SCR Profile.gif → File:Shuttle SCR HeadAnim.gif *File:Zergeye2.gif → File:Overmind SC1 HeadAnim1.gif -Tlaqh1335 (talk) 14:16, August 4, 2017 (UTC) Heroic Unit Clarification Subsourian, I would like to hear your opinion regarding Heroic units in the game. As you know, before it was agreed that any unit that could only be controlled in the campaign would be considered a campaign unit, while any unit you can't control would be considered an NPC unit. If that's the case, then this would hold true for heroic units as well. However Hawki recently said the following on the High Templar Hero page: "All heroes can only be used in campaign, the distinction is that heroes are single individuals and can't be produced." Does this mean that heroic units cannot get the Campaign unit or NPC unit category if they're only one of a kind? (ie there will never be another identical hero unit in the game) Or does this mean heroic units cannot get those categories at all simply because they're a heroic rank? Because if we're to follow the part of "can't be produced," then if you look at the Omegalisk page, this wouldn't make any sense. After all, those only appeared in the campaign, you can't produce those (not even in Co-op), yet it got the categories of NPC unit as well as Zerg hero unit just the same. Psi-ragnarok (talk) 17:29, August 7, 2017 (UTC) :Well, it's like this Subsourian: I saw the key words were "single individual." That's why I had wanted the High Templar Hero page to have the campaign category because there was more than one high templar hero, so I don't know why Hawki felt otherwise. If we follow that, then the case with the Brutalisk and Omegalisk would work because although they're a heroic rank, there's more than one such unit within the SC2 campaign. :Failing that, perhaps you, Hawki and PSH could discuss on how the campaign and NPC categories work for Heroic units for SC1 and SC2? That way, if the category rules apply differently between the games, there won't be all this confusion. Psi-ragnarok (talk) 02:44, August 9, 2017 (UTC) Clarification for Protoss NPC buildings I've just added Category:StarCraft Protoss NPC buildings on five pages because the StarEdit delcares those buliding as "Protoss special buildings": *Khaydarin crystal formation *Xel'naga temple *Xel'naga temple (Shakuras) *Warp gate (xel'naga) *Stasis cell However, Psi-ragnarok has reverted all of my edits and said, "The description specifically said it's a Xel'Naga building, so therefore it can't be a Protoss NPC one", "It is NOT a Protoss NPC building because the Protoss didn't create the temple, the Xel'Naga did", and "That means nothing lorewise. It was left by the Xel'Naga, the Protoss claimed it, but its origins still belonged to the Xel'Naga". Do you think his words make any senses? - 06:27, August 8, 2017 (UTC)